Comments for Din Merican: the Malaysian DJ Bloggerhttps://dinmerican.wordpress.com
"... if I know it is right, I will do it.That's the business of leader. ---Lee Kuan YewTue, 31 Mar 2015 16:40:07 +0000hourly1http://wordpress.com/Comment on Editors and Executives of Malaysian Insider are arrested by dinobeanohttps://dinmerican.wordpress.com/2015/03/31/editors-and-executives-of-malaysian-insider-are-arrested/#comment-245343
Tue, 31 Mar 2015 16:40:07 +0000http://dinmerican.wordpress.com/?p=67602#comment-245343A good journalist will check his source and verify the story before reporting and publishing. It is naive to trust one’s source. That said, to arrest them is not acceptable. What no reaction from Journalists without Borders or The White House? Ambassador Malott, any new developments with regard to the Open Letter, which you initiated?–Din Merican
]]>Comment on The Islam Reformers vs. the Muslim Zealots by Shiouhttps://dinmerican.wordpress.com/2015/03/30/the-islam-reformers-vs-the-muslim-zealots/#comment-245342
Tue, 31 Mar 2015 16:40:05 +0000http://dinmerican.wordpress.com/?p=67600#comment-245342Miss Hirsi Ali, being heretical reformer, is of course challenging the Islam’s doctrine. Her words are of course controversy. However, for those people, Muslims or not, who think of tackling the challenge of reforming Islamic world should be ready to refute convincingly of what is written by the Islamic State in the 7th issue of their publication Dabiq:

—-
…….
In burning the crusader pilot alive and burying
him under a pile of debris, the Islamic State
carried out a just form of retaliation for his
involvement in the crusader bombing campaign
which continues to result in the killing of
countless Muslims who, as a result of these
airstrikes, are burned alive and buried under
mountains of debris. This is not to even mention
those Muslims – men, women, and children –
who survive the airstrikes and are left injured
and disabled, and in many cases suffering from
severe burns that cause them pain and anguish
every minute of every day.

{AND IF YOU PUNISH [AN
ENEMY], PUNISH WITH AN
EQUIVALENT OF THAT WITH
WHICH YOU WERE HARMED}
[An-Nahl: 126].

This āyāh sufficiently demonstrates the shar’ī
validity of burning someone alive in a case of
qisās (retribution). The confusion perpetuated
by the hizbiyyīn, the palace “scholars,” and
the ignorant defeatists, is with regards to the
authentic statement of Allah’s Messenger
(sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam), “None should
punish with fire except Allah” [Sahīh al-Bukhārī].
As a result of their dishonesty in conveying the
truth, the deviants concealed the fact that there
is a famous exception to this ruling made in
the case of qisās and maslahah (overwhelming
benefit), and that in addition to the
aforementioned āyah from Sūrat An-Nahl, the
fuqahā’ used as evidence for these exceptions
the following āyah from Sūrat Al-Baqarah.
{So whoever has assaulted you, then assault
him in the same way that he has assaulted you}
[Al-Baqarah: 194].
They further used as evidence the hadīth of the
‘Uranī men whose eyes were gouged out by
the Prophet (sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) with
heated iron [Al-Bukhārī and Muslim].
Furthermore, the scholars highlighted the fact
that the Sahābah (radiyallāhu ‘anhum) punished
people with fire in a number of incidents that
took place throughout the course of the history
of the rightly-guided Khulafā’. Here we will
mention some of these incidents.
The first example: In his letter to the murtaddīn
of the Arabian Peninsula during the riddah wars,
Abū Bakr as-Siddīq (radiyallāhu ‘anh) threatened
to burn them alive if they did not repent from
their riddah. In it he states, “I have sent to you so
and so [Khālid Ibn al-Walīd] with an army of the
Muhājirīn, the Ansār, and their good followers,
and I’ve ordered him to not fight anyone or kill
anyone until he calls him to the call of Allah.
Whoever answers him, accepts the truth, halts
his evil, and does good, my envoy will accept
this from him and will aid him in it. If he refuses,
I’ve ordered him to wage war against them over
such, to not spare anyone he is able to kill, to
burn them alive with fire, to kill them in a severe
manner using all means, to enslave their women
and children, and to not accept from any one of
them anything but Islam” [Tārīkh at-Tabarī; AlBidāyah
wan-Nihāyah].2
The second example: Likewise during his
khilāfah, Abū Bakr (radiyallāhu ‘anh) gathered
a number of his advisors from amongst the
Sahābah and consulted them about the case of
a man found guilty of committing sodomy. The
one who had the most severe position was ‘Alī
(radiyallāhu ‘anh) who said, “This is a sin that
no nation had committed before except for
one nation, and you know how Allah dealt with
them. I view that we should burn him alive.” So
the Sahābah agreed with his position, and Abū
Bakr wrote to Khālid ordering him to burn the
man alive [Al-Bayhaqī].3
The third example: In another incident that
occurred during the riddah wars, a man
named al-Fujā’ah came to Abū Bakr as-Siddīq
(radiyallāhu ‘anh) claiming to be Muslim, and
asked Abū Bakr to prepare an army for him to
lead in fighting the murtaddīn. Abū Bakr did so,
and the man wound up killing and robbing
anyone he came across, including Muslims.
When this reached Abū Bakr, he sent an army
to detain him. He was detained and brought
back, and Abū Bakr ordered that he be taken
to the area of al-Baqī’ and burned alive [AlBidāyah
wan-Nihāyah].
The fourth example: During the riddah wars,
when Khālid Ibn al-Walīd defeated Tulayhah alAsadī
in the battle of Buzākhah, Abū Bakr wrote
to him ordering him to not be lenient and to
make an example out of anyone he captured
from amongst the kuffār who had killed
Muslims. So Khālid remained in Buzākhah for a
month hunting down the murtaddīn and taking
revenge for the Muslims who had been killed.
Some of the murtaddīn he would burn alive,
others he would stone to death, and others
he would throw off the tops of mountains [AlBidāyah
wan-Nihāyah].

The fifth example: Abū Mūsā al-Ash’arī
reported that the Prophet (sallallāhu ‘alayhi
wa sallam) sent both him and Mu’ādh Ibn Jabal
(radiyallāhu ‘anhumā) to Yemen, and instructed
them to teach the people the Qur’ān. Mu’ādh
came one day to visit Abū Mūsā and found with
him a man who was chained up, so he said, “O
my brother, were we sent to punish the people
or were we sent to teach them and order them
with what would benefit them?” So Abū Mūsā
said, “He embraced Islam and then disbelieved.”
So Mu’ādh said, “By He who sent Muhammad
with the truth, I will not leave until I burn him
with fire.” So Abū Mūsā said, “We still have some
unfinished business with him.” So Mu’ādh said,
“By Allah, I will never leave!” So some firewood
was brought and a fire was lit, and he threw him
in [Al-Mu’jam al-Kabīr – at-Tabarānī].
Thus, the Islamic State not only followed the
footsteps of Allah’s Messenger (sallallāhu
‘alayhi wa sallam) in his harshness towards the
disbelievers, but also emulated the example
of his righteous Sahābah (radiyallāhu ‘anhum)
by punishing with fire in retaliation, and for
the purpose of terrorizing the murtaddīn and
making examples out of them.
…..
———————————–

]]>Comment on With Lee’s passing, Mahathir is the last of South East Asia’s Mohicans by L. Wijayahttps://dinmerican.wordpress.com/2015/03/31/with-lees-passing-mahathir-is-the-last-of-south-east-asias-mohicans/#comment-245341
Tue, 31 Mar 2015 15:56:15 +0000http://dinmerican.wordpress.com/?p=67605#comment-245341If there were real successors that could outshine Mahathir that person would have already risen to the top regardless of any help or patronage. At the very least he would have made himself noticeable as a formidable candidate and we would have taken note of the person’s bright ideas. Wouldn’t be much of a leader if he can’t get himself known, would he? the lack thereof just shows that there isn’t much to pick from UMNO, not so much that Mahathir purposely picked someone who would not outshine him. Pray tell, who among the current crop of politicians you think would be a worthy successor to Mahathir regardless of their political affiliation? of course we have to take into consideration Malaysia’s social realities.
_________________
I don’t think you quite under the situation here. First, good and honest people in Malaysia avoid dirty politics. Second, the good ones don’t join UMNO because they know that they will not be accepted by the party leadership. Third, the party system is so corrupt that unless you are prepared to spend lots of money, you will not get anywhere. The party system based on nepotism and feudalism. BTW, Mahathir is not like LKY who identifies the best and mentors them. The former Malaysian Prime Minister will pick those who can say yes to him.–Din Merican
]]>Comment on Lee Kuan Yew and the Asian Model by dinobeanohttps://dinmerican.wordpress.com/2015/03/31/lee-kuan-yew-and-the-asian-model/#comment-245340
Tue, 31 Mar 2015 15:52:19 +0000http://dinmerican.wordpress.com/?p=67613#comment-245340Singapore’s economic success is founded on a strategic partnership between the government, the labour unions and private business. The role of government is that of provider of public goods such political stability, security, world class infrastructure, the rule of law and outstanding civil service ; the unions are to protect the rights of workers and ensure industrial peace and the private companies are allowed to operate profitably. Working together, this partnership made Singapore into a haven for foreign investment and a success story. Lee Kuan Yew and his dedicated team were men and women of ability and integrity. –Din Merican
]]>Comment on Hudud Law Again by Sumpitan Emashttps://dinmerican.wordpress.com/2015/03/23/hudud-law-again/#comment-245338
Tue, 31 Mar 2015 15:08:33 +0000http://dinmerican.wordpress.com/?p=67507#comment-245338Correction: (end of 2nd paragraph)

“A predictable consequence of this bias and hostility has Muslims so that all /i> CRITICAL scholarship tends to get confused with MALEVOLENT scholarship …”

Read as:
A predictable consequence of this bias and hostility has been the triggering of a defensive reaction and hardening of attitudes among Muslims so that all CRITICAL scholarship tends to be confused with MALEVOLENT scholarship.

The fact that science and technology in its present form did not develop in Islam is not a sign of decadence, as it is claimed, but the refusal of Islam to consider any form of knowledge as purely secular. – Syed Hossein Nasr

“The slow growth of science and modern ideas in most Muslim countries — even relative to other similar non-Muslim countries — is impossible to hide. Although Muslims form one-fifth of the world population, they are BARELY noticeable in the world of scientific research, and Muslim countries are the most abjectly dependent among developing countries upon Western technology and know-how. The Gulf war was a recent and powerful illustration of this glaring, but more than two-hundred-year-old, fact. Now, whether this reality ought to be lauded as a demonstration of tenacity against corrupting Western influences — as the above quote from the the scholar, Syed Hossein Nasr, suggests — or whether it should be lamented is immaterial to its veracity. Rather than engage in a futile attempt to refute an unpleasant reality, it would be infinitely more PRODUCTIVE for us to try and understand why science and modernism have developed at a relatively SLOWER pace in Muslim countries. ¶ The simplest thing to do, of course, is to hold the Islamic faith responsible…Indeed, many Orientalist scholars have long asserted that Islam produces fatalism, is oriented to the past rather than the future, and discourages new experiences and innovation…¶ The Orientalist’s analysis does, at times, contain elements of truth. But it is often simplistic and NEEDS to be viewed with suspicion…¶ Others, such as Edward Said … have forcefully emphasised the HEARTLESS nature of a scholarship which lacks empathy with the object of its study. The basic problem with the Orientalist viewpoint is that it takes a strictly formal and textual view of Islam, and generally sets aside as irrelevant the diverse intellectual currents which have historically coexisted within Muslim civilization … A predictable consequence of this bias and hostility has Muslims so that all /i> CRITICAL scholarship tends to get confused with MALEVOLENT scholarship …

The Restoranist Line
Among Muslims the Restorationist response is the MOST visible one today. It seeks to restore some idealized version of the past, and assigns ALL failures and defeat to a deviation from the True Path. The mushrooming of fundamentalist Islamic movements in the 1970s and 1980s is its most concrete manifestation … ¶ Maulana Abul Ala Maudoodi, founder of the Jamaat-e-Islami and one of the most influential Islamic thinkers of our times, also bitterly criticizes Western Science … he stated that geography, physics, chemistry, biology, zoology, geology and economics are taught WITHOUT reference to Allah and his Messenger and are hence a source of gumrahi (straying from the truth) …

The Reconstructionist Line
The Reconstructionist position — in sharp constrast to the virulent anti-science and anti-modernism of the orthodox — is essentially to reinterpret the faith in order to RECONCILE the demands of modern civilization with the teachings and traditions of Islam. This school of thought holds that Islam during the lifetime of the Prophet and Khilafa-i-Rashida (the four righteous Caliphs) was REVOLUTIONARY, PROGRESSIVE, LIBERAL and RATIONAL. The subsequent SLIDE towards stultifying rigidity and reactionary dogmatism is ascribed to the triumph of taqlid over ijtihad (innovation>. ¶ On the Indian sub-continent, two individuals — SYED AHMED KHAN and SYED AMEER ALI — were its most influential early exponents.

The attempt to make a transition from medieval to modern Islam in the 19th century was spearheaded by the Indian Muslim, Syed Ahmed Khan. The failure of the 1857 uprising against the British, and the subsequent trauma of Indians and particularly Indian Muslims, spurred him into seeking a new interpretation of Islam … ¶ Born into an aristocratic family of Mughal ancestry, Syed Ahmed Khan was convinced that desperate remedies were needed if the Muslims of India were ever to become anything other than ‘stableboys, cooks, servants, hewers of wood, and drawers of water.’ As he saw it, backwardness was a direct result of superstitious beliefs and rejection of maaqulat (reason) in favour of BLIND obedience to manqulat (tradition). So he set about the task of reinterpreting Muslim theology, making it compatible with post-Renaissance Western humanistic and scientific ideas, and extracting the ‘pure’ Islam from FOSSILIZED and IRRELEVANT dogma:
‘My enquiring mind never left me … This made me arrive at the truth which I believe to be thet Islam (pure Islam) although conventional Muslims may hold it to be thet kufr (pure unbelief)’ …

For Syed Ahmed Khan as a religious scholar, the task of scientific exegesis was of paramount importance. In a startling break with tradition, he proposed that the Qu’ran be reinterpreted so as to remove all APPARENT contradictions with physical reality. Since the Qu’ran was the word of God, he argued, and since scientific truths were manifestly correct, any contradiction could ONLY be apparent and NOT real. So, he suggested a mode of interpretation of the Qu’ran according to the following methodology: … For Syed Ahmed Khan the Qu’ran was a book meant for moral guidance, NOT a book in which to seek scientific knowledge. ¶ For the religious of his time, the most objectionable element of Syed Ahmed Khan’s theology was his dismissal of the Shari’at, the code by which all Muslims are expected to live, as irrelevant to the Muslims of modern India. This, expectedly, drew wide condemnation … ¶ Although Syed Ahmed Khan is revered in Pakistan as the first exponent of Muslim nationalism, his views on religion and science have found few takers …

Educated in England and a firm disciple of Syed Ahmed Khan, SYED AMEER ALI wrote his magnum opus The Spirit of Islam with a definite goal in mind — to prove that TRUE Islam is REVOLUTIONARY, RATIONAL, and PROGRESS-oriented. First published in 1891, and repeatedly enlarged until upon 1922, the books underwent innumerable reprints and was read throughout the Muslim world … ¶ Syed Ameer Ali’s concern with the issue of scientific progress and Islam permeates much of his book. His views on this can be summarised as follows:
● The Holy Qu’ran and sayings of the Prophet (PBUH) give SUPREME value to knowledge. Knowledge is to be understood as including Science. This is what motivated the early Muslims to study science.
● Aristotelian philosophy and rationalist thinking were entirely in accordance with Islam, and the Mu’tazilite is to be sympathised with even if it went a bit too far sometimes. The Muslim philosophers and scholars — AL-KINDI, AL FARABI, IBN SINA, IBN AL-HATHAM, IBN RUSHD — are TRUE heroes of Islam.
● It was the fanatics and rigid dogmatists who caused Islamic science and culture to collapse. Syed Ameer Ali identifies those MOST responsible as AL ASHARI, IBN HANBAL, AL GHAZALI, and IBN TAYMIYYA.
● Science needs to be brought back from the West into Islam; it is NOT something foreign to Islam and NOT by any means UNISLAMIC…

Syed Ahmed Khan and Syed Ameer Ali’s passionate defence of science and philosophy was coupled with a general liberalism on issues of social importance. They REJECTED polygamy and purdah as unsuited to the modern age, interpreted jihad as actually meaning INTELLECTUAL WAR, asserted that the Holy Prophet battled with his foes purely in SELF-DEFENCE, stated that the amputation of the hand for theft or stoning to death for adultery were suitable ONLY for tribal societies LACKING prisons, and believed that the Qu’ran was written in a language suitable for the common folk of the desert. So, for example, the HOORIS of Heaven are creatures of ZOROASTRIAN origin, while Hell in the severity of its punishment is TALMUDIC.

In their determination to go back to the ‘pure’ Islam of the Prophet and prove the ‘modernity of Islam, Muslim modernist-reconstructionist have walked a tight-rope. It will NEVER be resolved satisfactorily whether their attempts to reinterpret Islam WERE motivated by deeply held inner beliefs, or by more pragmatic concerns for the fate of the Muslim peoples. Several forces appear to have acted SIMULTANEOUSLY: true conviction, fear of the orthodoxy, the belief that Muslims are doomed should they persist in rejecting modern civilization and progress, and the urge to ‘look good’ in the eyes of the West. Syed Ahmed Khan’s efforts epitomize this struggle. He took on the full fury of the orthodoxy. Aligarh Muslim University, which was his creation, was boycotted. Numerous fatwas of ilhad (apostasy) and kufr (unbelief) were issued by the ulema. The mutawalli (keeper) of the Holy Kaaba declared to be an enemy of Islam and wajib-i-qatl (deserver of death). However, his defence of Muslim interests has preserved his name for posterity.

The Pragmatist Line
There is overwhelming evidence that it is the Muslim pragmatist who constitutes the SILENT majority of Muslims today. Preferring to treat requirements of religion AND faith as essentially UNRELATED to the direct concerns of political and economic life, OR to science and secular knowledge, the pragmatist is SATISFIED with a vague belief that Islam and modernity are NOT in conflict, but is DISINCLINED to examine such issues too closely. The preoccupation of reconstructionists in searching for Qu’ranic interpretations strikes him as being somewhat redundant and arcane. Nevertheless, on substantive issues, including opposition to fundamentalist thinking, there is essential agreement. ¶ A fascinating example of the early pre-modernity and pro-science pragmatist is SYED JAMALUDDIN AFGHANI (1838-1897)… ¶ Afghani is important because his ideas deeply influenced Muslims in their struggle against Western colonialism… Afghani did NOT make a serious attempt to reinterpret Muslim theology. Instead, he stressed Islam as a unifying force against colonial West… ¶ There is NO question that Jamaluddin Afghani was DEEPLY enamoured with the power of modern science and was eager learn the secret of the West’s strength. In his 1882 lecture in Calcutta he said:
‘Thus I say: If someone looks deeply into the question, he will see that science rules the world. There was, is, and will be NO ruler but SCIENCE…. The benefits of science are immeasurable; and these finite thoughts CANNOT encompass what is infinite.’

Chapter 12 Some Thoughts for the Future [p134 -139]
Muslim society, bullied by the military might of the West, pushed into retrograde positions by reactionary internal forces, torn by bitter rivalries and enmities, disappointed by its historical fate, and culturally wedded to the past, is in DIRE need of EDUCATIONAL, SOCIAL and POLITICAL reform if SCIENCE and HUMAN DIGNITY are to flourish…¶ But there is deep cause for worry because, in the fight against injustice and domination, it is the orthodoxy ALONE which has been successful in translating popular resentments into political gains. Fundamentalist movements have come to dominate intellectual discourse in key Muslim countries and the Muslim modernist movement, which emphasizes Islam’s compatibility with science and rationalism, has lost its cultural and ideological hegemony… Rejection of colonialism has become an excuse to justify a blind backtracking into the past and an HYSTERICAL rejection of knowledge and rationality. This can only WORSEN the highly skewed balance of power in the world today. The truth is that one part of humanity has been cut off from contact with the processes of rational and scientific thought. This has AUTOMATICALLY endowed another part of humanity with the attributes of power. ¶ …what is needed is a framework for thought and action, based upon science and reason, but in harmony with the INHERITED cultures of the Muslim peoples.

First, we need to renounce the notion that there exists a simple and unique solution for all dilemmas of society, or that a repertoire of every possible problem and its solution is to be found somewhere in tradition. The fact is that a modern society faces highly complex issues and choices in almost EVERY sphere of activity… Complex societies have complex problems which may have only complex remedies. No remedy is likely to be perfect. In such circumstances, one seeks a quantitative rather than a qualitative, measure of success… ¶ Because the rules of a modern society are NOT absolute, they can be changed in the light of accumulated experience to alleviate excesses and mistakes. Reform is NOT instantaneous, but proceeds BY degrees. In contrast, the dogmatist dreams of reforming ALL of society in one HOLISTIC sweep and believes that he has in his possession a unique, UNALTERABLE blueprint. This quest for UTOPIA leads to AUTHORITARIANISM, INTOLERANCE and VIOLENCE because, once the end goal has been defined, NO one is allowed to critizise or change it. The INSUFFERABLE ARROGANCE of those who claim to be in the sole possession of religious truth is the CAUSE of immense misery and suffering. Very often, the target of utopian violence are actually members belonging to the same faith. ¶ Therefore instead of planning for utopia, it makes more sense to ATTEMPT a partial and piecemeal solution to the problems right in front of us and to deal with them in a systematic, logical and realistic way. The realization that an all-encompassing solution is NOT available requires a high degree of social, as well as individual, maturity. But it is only a mature society which can possess intellectual and religious tolerance, and which can provide basic liberties to its citizens.

Second, we must fight against the tendency to confuse MODERNIZATION with WESTERNIZATION. The two have come to be viewed as synonymous, but it is NOT necessary to be Western in order to be modern, or to pose a dichotomy between mdernity and tradition. One can find in the history of Islamic culture — in the works of Ibn Sina, Ibn Rushd, Al-Razi and many others — an insistence on a rational creed, and hence the seeds of the modern approach to life. Modern man does NOT deny spirituality. But he is oriented TOWARDS the present and future rather than the past, is open to fresh experiences and new ideas, accepts reason and calculability instead of fate… In order to function, organized societies need modern people — people who can relate cause to effect, can resolve conflicts without the use of violence, know how to use available public services, can spend their money efficiently, and use their leisure time usefully…¶ Modernity and science go together in our age, and science is the supreme expression of man’s rationality…appreciation and internalization of science cannot occur without the simultaneous development of a rational, modern and egalitarian system of education. At present, there is insufficient realization of the need for this. To invest resources in education is necessary, but far from enough — the content of education is even more important. The end goal of education in a modern society is to PRODUCE persons capable of critical thought, who believe in the power of reason, and who have internalized concepts and values crucial to the functioning of organized society.

Third a truce needs to be declared in the continuing opposition to modern science as an epistemological enterprise, although debate on its utilitarian goals MUST continue and even sharpened. Many great scientists, and enlightened leaders of the religious establishment, have affirmed that there can be no real opposition between true religion and science, and that one is indeed the complement of the other. The religious element in man’s soul — his ability to wonder and reflect — is something to be recognized and cultivated… At its (science) deepest level, it does create a feeling of reverence because an advance of knowledge brings us face to face with the mystery of our being… The mission of the rationalists was to disentangle the two (secular and religious knowledge) and to REDUCE the bewildering proliferation of verbiage and confusion on almost EVERY issue. To take just one example, enormous confusion surrounds the definition of ilm (knowledge). Franz Rosental lists 107 definitions, and a 16th century Arab scholar has given 316. Muslim scholars have YET to give definitive view on how to relate the various specializations of modern knowledge to the original Qu’ranic interpretations of ilm… ¶ While science must be vigorously pursued both for development and for enlightenment of the mind, one MUST be clear that science is NOT a replacement for religion and that it does NOT constitute a code of morality. Science provides a unique framework and paradigm for calculating and quantifying; but it knows NOTHING about justice, beauty, or feeling… The emotional void in a technological culture, the unbridled pursuit of weapons of destruction … the imbalances induced by science in the economic and social progress of humanity, are the consequences of a UNILINEAR vision of progress consecrates and elevates science to the level of an ethic and morality. This delusion MUST be opposed as vigorously as rationality must be fought for. But the battleground for the skewed outlook on science is primarily in the West, while the struggle for rationality is in the East.

Fourth, it needs to be recognized that there is no law of nature confining scientific and technological progress to the developed nations of the West… There is no reason to accept the inequalities within AND between nations as natural or ordained by Providence. These inequalities CAN be, and MUST be mitigated… ¶ What this demands is that the structures of domination have to be dismantled — structures that permit not only the suppression and denigration of one nation by another, but also one segment of society by another. The latter is a highly visible REALITY in most developing countries, where one witnesses the modernization of tyrannical military-bureaucratic elites, but NOT the modernization of people… To rely on the people is an expression of respect for cultural heritage, for it is only they who are the bearers of culture and tradition… ¶ The ENRICHMENT of life, the UPLIFT of human dignity, the LIBERATION of the creative spirit and the VINDICATION of freedom — this is the STRUGGLE AHEAD OF US…”

Note: A Malaysian publisher took the initiative to make this book available to the Malaysian public by producing a local reprint of this excellent 158 page book by Prof Hoodbhoy. I don’t know whether it is still available in Kuala Lumpur.

]]>Comment on Hudud Law Again by Sumpitan Emashttps://dinmerican.wordpress.com/2015/03/23/hudud-law-again/#comment-245336
Tue, 31 Mar 2015 14:41:32 +0000http://dinmerican.wordpress.com/?p=67507#comment-245336Abnizar, the past will always remain mysterious to each of us in different ways, and only true faith in Someone is all that matters to help us navigate ourselves to that end point some call ‘hereafter’, and others ‘taman firdaus’, but ‘the event horizon’ for me.

Belief and Unbelief will always be the choice of an individual, but at the end of each day: a) Have we added to the total around us or have we subtracted from it — have we contributed something tangible or have we become a burden to society?

Now, for the final part, Part Three, in the next thread.

]]>Comment on With Lee’s passing, Mahathir is the last of South East Asia’s Mohicans by dinobeanohttps://dinmerican.wordpress.com/2015/03/31/with-lees-passing-mahathir-is-the-last-of-south-east-asias-mohicans/#comment-245334
Tue, 31 Mar 2015 13:57:26 +0000http://dinmerican.wordpress.com/?p=67605#comment-245334The two authoritarians ruled their countries with different outcomes. The results are for all to see. Corruption is rampant in Malaysia whereas the island republic is a model of good governance. Lee made his country as oasis of prosperity and growth with a first world status, while Malaysia is lagging behind due to weak leadership which condones corruption, racism and religious extremism. Lee created competent leaders. Mahathir chose successors who could not outshine him.–Din Merican
]]>Comment on Editors and Executives of Malaysian Insider are arrested by John Malotthttps://dinmerican.wordpress.com/2015/03/31/editors-and-executives-of-malaysian-insider-are-arrested/#comment-245333
Tue, 31 Mar 2015 13:36:59 +0000http://dinmerican.wordpress.com/?p=67602#comment-245333I don’t want to get paranoid, but — personally, I wonder if TMI was set up. Meaning, someone purposely leaked a false report to them, knowing what would happen afterwards. And I agree that it is payback for all their 1MDB reporting.
]]>Comment on The Islam Reformers vs. the Muslim Zealots by Conradhttps://dinmerican.wordpress.com/2015/03/30/the-islam-reformers-vs-the-muslim-zealots/#comment-245331
Tue, 31 Mar 2015 13:24:24 +0000http://dinmerican.wordpress.com/?p=67600#comment-245331I think Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s atheism and political affiliations subvert her “message” and in the end while she does occasionally make some astute observations, I never really find much to discuss especially since she is on those “rejection of God” atheist.

On this topic I much prefer this fairly recent Ismael Hossein-zadeh piece on counterpunch.